Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 Nov 2002 19:04:20 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: interrupt checks for spinlocks |
| |
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 20:42, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'll go figure out why before posting a follow-up. This is not doing >> what I wanted it to because the only one I originally wanted was (1), >> having to do with interrupt-time recursion on rwlocks and writer >> starvation caused by it.
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 10:01:24PM -0500, Robert Love wrote: > You can do #1, but you need to figure out if your interrupt is the only > interrupt using the lock or not (possibly hard). > In other words, a lock unique to your interrupt handler does not need to > disable interrupts (since only that handler can grab the lock and it is > disabled). > If other handlers can grab the lock, interrupts need to be disabled. > So a test of irqs_disabled() would show a false-positive in the first > case. No easy way to tell.. > Robert Love
Sounds like I rip out that check and ignore the fact it's useless for its original intended purpose. No matter, it'll turn up something.
Incoming.
Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |